Dwarf Fortress: Ten hours with the most inscrutable video game of all time

Who knew trying to build a virtual chair could lead to questions of self-worth?

The dwarf fortress, in all its glory. Or, really, a very minor amount of glory, given my progress.

Dwarf Fortress is one of the most complex computer games in the history of computer games. How complex? In the game's discussion forum, one player asserts that after 120 failed games, he can finally "get into the swing of things." One of his many fortress death spirals began, as the downfalls of society often do, with an immigrant dwarf who suddenly succumbed to a "secretive mood." A short time later—kaboom.

First devised by its two obsessive creators in 2002, Dwarf Fortress involves taking a band of dwarves and building them into a miniature civilization. This includes all the implied strategy and resource management: assigning jobs, collecting and storing goods, building and using structures, and eventually defending yourself against other civilizations. In a profile of the game’s co-creators, the New York Timesdescribed Dwarf Fortress as “a series of staggeringly elaborate challenges and devastating setbacks.”

Not only is the game complex, with endless intricacies to the controls and systems, but it’s incredibly archaic-looking, especially for a game released this millennium. Its cast and environments are all rendered in colored characters of ASCII symbols (apostrophes, letters, mathematical symbols). It’s a puzzle constructed in code, a throwback to games like Kroz. Calling it Dwarf Fortress is almost misleading at first—you won't see anything resembling a traditional dwarf here.

While I implicitly understood Dwarf Fortress to be difficult, I couldn't imagine why it was said to be so hard. It seemed counterintuitive to make a game so obtuse it might actually drive people away unless the developers at Bay 12 Games were the Pai Meis of game design, accepting only the most dedicated/masochistic of players. I’ve played complex simulation and management games before (Civilization, SimCity). I’ve won some endeavors and lost others, but the general structure, strategy, and type of thinking involved with these titles has always appealed to me. Could another simulation seriously be that much more difficult to understand than the ones I already knew?

Enlarge/ It's possible to see the game rendered in a slightly less impenetrable art style, but our trial was run in the full glory of representative ASCII character art.

There are rewards to playing a game like Dwarf Fortress: from reading the forums and articles about the game, it's clear that once you have a grasp of the mechanics, the wide-open nature of the game gives you flexibility to do more or less whatever you want. Similar to Dungeons and Dragons, once you overcome the technical execution hurdles, the only remaining major limitation is your imagination. In one account from a now-defunct site, a player builds a coliseum for holding gladiatorial goblin fights to the amusement of the kingdom's rulers; at RockPaperShotgun, one player imagines a deep history for a quiver that is used to fell a clutch of demons, and once its owner dies, the quiver kills every new dwarf that tries to claim ownership.

I decided to give the game ten hours of my life. I set a goal of doing my legit best to avoid using external guides or hints and to hold off using internal explanations unless I felt lost. I’d experiment and explore, seeing what I could ascertain from the user interface and environment and making as much progress as I could by my wits alone. And I learned one thing well: Dwarf Fortress is not a game that will hold your hand.

Disclaimer: Graphical skins and other such add-ons can make the game more palatable, but for the purposes of this piece, I attempted to play it in its original, stripped-down state. There are instructions within the game, and without in the form of wikis and forums, but I wanted to begin at the most basic level, if only to come at the game from a recently trendy (if controversial) design paradigm on discoverability that's flowed from mobile apps to many new indie games: "if you see a UI walkthrough, they blew it". This is admittedly extreme, but I wanted to begin at the bottom to let the game be its most challenging, and then work up from there.

Our hero awakens in unfamiliar typographical surroundings

As my first playthrough begins, I find that I can move around the screen, but I’m not sure to what end. As far as I can see, I’m moving from one obscure symbol to the next. Playing this game is, visually, not entirely unlike reading a quantum physics textbook. I spot some square root signs in the “distance.”

My HUD, so to speak, would have me believe they are the “badlands.” Here there are no trees or vegetation but the surroundings are “mirthful." It’s not clear what they’ve done to deserve that adjective, but it’s a morale high point, so far.

Options have opened up to “embark” or “find desired location.” I embark, and the game warns me to prepare carefully for the journey to “Atêkirth." Possessing little knowledge of what that place is, how I will get there, or what I’ll find upon arriving, I steel my nerves for the worst.

This represents a world, I gather.

Doesn't this look... lovely... ?

Apparently “embark” means “cease movement around the map of Greek symbols,” because now the game is telling me that seven companions and I are here to make an outpost for “the glory of all Kêshshaksem.” The game tells me I have no supplies and it’s Spring now, but I need to get my sustenance act together “before winter entombs me.” Someone’s been reading too much Game of Thrones.

Now the map is punctuation marks, with a few happy faces scattered around. Ah, I think I get it—I chose a location to dig a hole in the ground, and now, having dug a hole in the ground, I have a Dwarf Fortress. So far the only narrative instructions in the game that I’ve gotten so far are the two words in the title.

A collective of dwarves, in what I will eventually come to realize are sinister surroundings.

I now have an overwhelming number of options for modifying my fortress and directing my dwarf peons. Looking at my list of residents, I see a couple of woodworkers, a couple who mainly deal with fish, and an “expedition leader.” Since our expedition has just ended, I make a mental note to eat him first if our winter preparations go awry.

I lose focus and manage to send a text message to my brother about a pregnant, mutual friend and send pictures of Claire Dane’s crying face to my boyfriend. I start cleaning my keyboard with a piece of sticky-tack before I remember my one true purpose: build my fortress, with dwarves. (I think.)

Enlarge/ A fan drawing of a dwarf (affectionately referred to as "dorfs" by the fan base).

I realize I have an option for a military and worry that things could get serious. I further doubt the utility of an expedition leader in this game. Then I stumble into a menu where I can see the relationships my dwarves have with others. The expedition leader worships two gods but is only long-term acquaintances with his fellow dwarves. Now I worry he’s not only useless, but possibly a vigilante who may be plotting my death. I discover somewhere in the menus that I have a wagon.

The only apparent action I can take is to make a burrow. I accidentally create two burrows in immediate succession. I find out I can put dwarves in them. In goes the expedition leader. Live burial.

While I was moving my smiley face icon around the screen before, I can’t seem get it to do it again. I want to put burrows everywhere and put dwarves in them because that suddenly feels like enormous progress in this game. Stockholm syndrome is swift and unforgiving.

The game has been paused this whole time, so I decide to let it run to see what happens. Happy faces, d’s, W’s, and c’s mill around on the screen. I let them run for a few minutes and then check various menus to see if there have been any fruits of the labor that may or may not have happened, theoretically represented by the busy icons moving around on the screen. I can’t find anything. My dwarves may be, for all I know, dying in slow and very low-resolution motion. Time to read some instructions.

Hilarious retelling of your experience. I wish Ars had more articles like this for gaming. I suppose I can understand a spoiler hindrance on a lot of AAA titles, but on an obscure game like this, I love it. I probably never would have attempted to learn anything about this game, but your own experience was very entertaining. Keep it up Casey!

This article was delightful and left me reminiscing of fortresses gone by. It has been the primary catalyst motivating me to think back on the years of quality, pertinent or just plain interesting articles I've read on Ars Technica and, ultimately, in deciding to subscribe.

The article itself, while funny, well written, and enjoyable to read, seemed to just want to make the point, again, that DF is inaccessible without external guides and references.

I mean, really. "No non-economic stone... what the hell does that mean? Lemme read the wiki for a few minutes. Ah, now I understand that game concept. Check." You will be doing this over and over. This is just the procedure required to play the game. Period. If you want to punish yourself by doing without just because it "shouldn't be like that" well, don't act all shocked that you don't know what non-economic stone is, or what designating is for, or what burrows are for. It's so obtuse! Yes! Yes it is! There are resources to help with that if you are willing! If you are not, well, keep raging against that machine, I guess.

Yes a more informative error message would do it.

If the error message Casey saw was: You do not have enough non-economic stoneIt could be replaced with this fully informative message:You do not have enough Alunite or Borax or Cryolite or Marcasite or Periclase or Quartzite or Rock salt or Talc or Anhydrite or Dacite or Gneiss or Granite or Phyllite or Stibniter or Andesite or Basalt or Claystone or Chromite or Diorite or Gabbro or Graphite or Hornblende or Ilmenite or Jet or Mica or Pyrolusite or Rhyolite or Shale or Slate or Chert or Conglomerate or Mudstone or Puddingstone or Sandstone or Schist or Siltstone or Brimstone or Orpiment or Orthoclase or Saltpeter or Sylvite or Bauxite or Cinnabar or Petrified wood or Realgar or Olivine or Serpentine or Microcline or Cobaltite or Kimberlite or Pitchblende or Rutile.

The second error message takes all the guesswork out of the error message and requires an update every time a non-economic stone is added to or removed from the game...

Similarly in a game that requires the player to wear armor to go through a portal, an informative error message might be: You are not wearing armor Of course that error is entirely non-informative and should say something like:You are not wearing Leather or Boiled Leather or Elven or Leather Scale Mail or Elven Scale Mail or Ring Mail or Elven Ring Mail or Plate or Bluestone Plate or Adamantite or Ancient or Azure or [continues to list the 1001 different armor options in the game]

Which do you really think is the better error message? The one that simply tells you what is wrong or the one that goes on, for maybe several pages in some cases, listing everything that fits the general category?

The article itself, while funny, well written, and enjoyable to read, seemed to just want to make the point, again, that DF is inaccessible without external guides and references.

I mean, really. "No non-economic stone... what the hell does that mean? Lemme read the wiki for a few minutes. Ah, now I understand that game concept. Check." You will be doing this over and over. This is just the procedure required to play the game. Period. If you want to punish yourself by doing without just because it "shouldn't be like that" well, don't act all shocked that you don't know what non-economic stone is, or what designating is for, or what burrows are for. It's so obtuse! Yes! Yes it is! There are resources to help with that if you are willing! If you are not, well, keep raging against that machine, I guess.

Yes a more informative error message would do it.

If the error message Casey saw was: You do not have enough non-economic stoneIt could be replaced with this fully informative message:You do not have enough Alunite or Borax or Cryolite or Marcasite or Periclase or Quartzite or Rock salt or Talc or Anhydrite or Dacite or Gneiss or Granite or Phyllite or Stibniter or Andesite or Basalt or Claystone or Chromite or Diorite or Gabbro or Graphite or Hornblende or Ilmenite or Jet or Mica or Pyrolusite or Rhyolite or Shale or Slate or Chert or Conglomerate or Mudstone or Puddingstone or Sandstone or Schist or Siltstone or Brimstone or Orpiment or Orthoclase or Saltpeter or Sylvite or Bauxite or Cinnabar or Petrified wood or Realgar or Olivine or Serpentine or Microcline or Cobaltite or Kimberlite or Pitchblende or Rutile.

The second error message takes all the guesswork out of the error message and requires an update every time a non-economic stone is added to or removed from the game...

Similarly in a game that requires the player to wear armor to go through a portal, an informative error message might be: You are not wearing armor Of course that error is entirely non-informative and should say something like:You are not wearing Leather or Boiled Leather or Elven or Leather Scale Mail or Elven Scale Mail or Ring Mail or Elven Ring Mail or Plate or Bluestone Plate or Adamantite or Ancient or Azure or [continues to list the 1001 different armor options in the game]

Which do you really think is the better error message? The one that simply tells you what is wrong or the one that goes on, for maybe several pages in some cases, listing everything that fits the general category?

In the first case? Neither. The first makes zero sense without first an explanation of what the hell "economic" vs "non-economic" is supposed to mean in context and the second because it is too lengthy.

Similarly in a game that requires the player to wear armor to go through a portal, an informative error message might be: You are not wearing armor Of course that error is entirely non-informative and should say something like:

Which do you really think is the better error message? The one that simply tells you what is wrong or the one that goes on, for maybe several pages in some cases, listing everything that fits the general category?

Or even easier: "Armor is required to enter a portal. You are not wearing armor"

Which do you really think is the better error message? The one that simply tells you what is wrong or the one that goes on, for maybe several pages in some cases, listing everything that fits the general category?

I suppose, ideally, "non-economic stone" would be linked text to a reference page of some sort, like the civilopedia or something. But really, as long as it gives you some clue to search for, it is functional for the time being. I remember hitting this exact same error message for the first time and it took a grand total of a few minutes to figure out on the wiki.

Everyone here seems to understand that, but responds with "But I shouldn't have to....". Well... yeah, okay, but you do. See you in 15 years when the UI gets redone, I suppose! Look forward to it!

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that someone will develop a Dwarf Fortress clone way before then that is actually intuitive to use.

I think you underestimate the amount of time it would take to make a decent clone.

I think a decent GUI on the existing engine would be more achievable. Not a tile-set or skin, but a completely re-worked interface (that might just be a keystuffer on the back end). Off the top of my head, I'm picturing something styled along the lines of DungeonKeeper, with the non-focal z-levels transparent. Don't ask Toady to do it, though he should have input as he feels inclined to participate.

Of course it would start with incredibly bad figures and textures, such as an extruded mesh of the original ASCII characters, but DF seems to have no shortage of people willing to pitch in their talents.

This article was very funny and inspired me to tackle the challenges of the game.

I spent a whole bunch of hours on it this week and had a lot of fun. However, I hate to say it, but the UI, even though you can learn it, is just plain disorganized.

"Stockpile Zones" is one menu. "Activity Zones" is another separate menu. "Room Zones" have to be designated by a special keyword while highlighting special objects--then you identify rooms with an awkwardly shaped labeling tool and a completely different area selector from the other two. Things would be a lot simpler if these were just all just 'Zones'. And then "Workshops", while occupying zones of free space, is a completely different thing. And then "garbage dump". According to the Quickstart Guide, "garbage" is never used for actual garbage, only used for space-saving storage of valuable items. I started to see the meaning of people's criticisms of the UI. I can learn this stuff, but it's just...eh. The dwarf stories, art, and fights that occur are always funny and interesting, though.

Still, I sit here and think: This game is fun, but if the developer wanted to even listen to 1 person, or hire 1 person to actively collaborate... it could be so much better for so many people. He says in an interview that "internet people can't be trusted because they might lose interest." So, /hire/ someone for real then. Overall it just seems like a lot of potential that goes missing. He's adding a ton of fun gameplay detail, while the pathway to access that detail remains long, narrow, and cramped.

You can say "it is what it is", but i say, "it is a whole lot less than it could easily be, even though sadly, it is what it is."

To offer some counterexamples:

A deep game done by a small company of 8 people that responds extremely well to community input and is easy to get into while very hard to master: Path of ExileA deep sanbox game done by a single guy with help from volunteers that responds really well to communty input and which is easy to get into while moderately challenging to master: [REDACTED per rules, but trust me, it exists and its existence disproves the "Making the UI simple in a deep sandbox game is too hard" argument].

Do you rant and rave about how every feature in Photoshop is not instantly understandable, and so demand that nobody should be allowed to use anything more advanced than MS Paint?

This comment begs a retort.

First of all, I don't think that anyone is telling anyone else what they are allowed and not allowed to do with their time. Be it coding immensely intricate simulation of dwarf fortresses or playing that simulation. I really have no interest in telling anyone else what to do with their time. And like I said earlier, it's infinitely better that this simulation exists, than if it did not exist.

Hell, I'm planning to give it a try, and I wouldn't be one bit surprised if I had great time with it! But that doesn't make my earlier criticism go away.

As to Photoshop: No, I do not know how every single feature in Photoshop works. But I could still do _something_. With DF I most likely would have NO idea what is going on or what to do.

The biggest problem I have with Dwarf Fortress lately is the focus on Adventurer mode, which is kind of terrible IMO and ill-fitting with the rest of the game.

I know, labor of love, eccentric "genius", etc., but when I play Dwarf Fortress, I want to tell some dwarves how to set up a fortress. Let some other game do the hyper-complex roguelike adventurer simulation.

I suppose if all the systems he's gone off designing for Adventurer do eventually trickle back into Fortress mode, perhaps it'll be worth it, but for now it seems a waste, frankly. The whole mode reminds me of those blue-sky tangents that come up during brainstorming that should've been axed a long time ago.

According to the Quickstart Guide, "garbage" is never used for actual garbage, only used for space-saving storage of valuable items. I started to see the meaning of people's criticisms of the UI.

Well, it's intended to be a dump. Absolutely. What players often end up DOING with a dump is using it as an infinite-size storage area. By marking things to be dumped, and then later 'reclaiming' them, you can put an essentially unlimited number of things in a very small space.

This was more important in prior versions, because you used to have such huge gobs of 'stones' after mining that you could barely deal with them. In this last version, Toady cut the amount of stones that occur when mining to 1/4 the prior chance, and then changed the 'create rock blocks' job, which turns raw stone into finished blocks that accelerate construction, to produce 4 times as many blocks. And, since blocks can store at about 10:1 if you make enough bins to hold them, the overall result is cutting down clutter by probably at least ten times overall.... dealing with junk stones was a huge, huge issue. And you can build structures just as large as before, you just have to convert your stones to blocks before building. (which actually makes sense.)

So, there's not that much reason to abuse dumps anymore. You can actually use them as, well, dumps. And if you rig up an 'atom smasher', you can get rid of the items completely, saving some RAM, and speeding up the game a little.

(Oh, an atom smasher is a drawbridge that pivots, instead of just disappearing; when it comes down, it obliterates anything underneath it, with a few exceptions. )

By the way, Casey, if you're still reading the thread, I hope you don't give up on the game. You've just gotten to the point where it starts to get fun - you're starting to understand what you need to do, and roughly how to get there. This is typically where it starts to get gripping.

But, my lord, make it easier on yourself and consult the Wiki. I do it all the time, and I'm an old hand!.

Also, keep in mind that many of us have been playing this game through many versions. In its original, 2D iteration, you would have found it much easier. I hated the 3D enough that it put me off the game for years. I'm still not convinced that going 3D was the right idea, and I'm definitely sure that the new combat system was a bad idea. But I still play it, because there are ways of avoiding the combat almost completely, once you know the game well enough.

If you want to learn more about the game, the makers and really where it comes from (and what's planned for the future) I recommend reading the NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magaz ... d=all&_r=0), also linked from the beginnig of this article. A few points fromthere might clarify some things up.

Tarn Adams (the lone programmer of DF, who is designing the game with his brother) started off making 3D games, but found out that adding depth and complexity is much easier if you don't have the worry about the presentation too much. The underlying simulation is extremely complex and might well have different kind of graphical presentation layer and a more cohesive UI once the game is "finished".

If things seem a bit rough on the edges it's because the current version of Dwarf Fortress is actually just 0.34.11 Alpha, with the version 1.0 planned to be released somewhere "twenty years from now". This is not just any game project, but like Tarn says in that article "this is going to be my life’s work”. Think about what that means. No other game I believe has such dedication behind it. Alredy beign as deep as it is I cn't even imagine what it's going to be like. This is relly what keeps me hooked.

About the graphics and the UI: I completely understand people being put off by it, but personally I actually prefer ASCII to the tilesets. Once you get used to it it becomes very accessible. Like reading a book the lack of fancy graphics leaves more room for your imagnation.

The UI on the other hand, now there I hope things would be better. Even if the Adams Brothers may consider it secondary at this stage of the project I hope there would be an API of some sort to create an alternative UI for the game. Now there's a challenge for hard core fortress managers, I'm sure there's more than a handfull of programmers in that group.

Actually, could we have a Kickstarter project to fund that? Or to convince Tarn, who is living by the donations from the players, to do that?

I think is a valid and funny approach the article had given us (grammar ok?).

Just firing up the game and investigating is really a challenge for true games... if you just picked up a box of domino would you know how to play? Or a deck of cards? You could create a game with those pictures. Same issue here.

I've never played DF until yesterday, and my first impressions are that is a really complex game with a UI of a pascal game of the old ages.... perhaps thats to much whining about the UI because ppl want to start a game and just beat it really fast. It took me 2 hours of wiki and meditation to figure designations menu and buildings... of course the tileset really helped here. But the UI is just a sequence of simple keys... its the game thats really complex.

Nothing that common sense wouldn't help when it kicks in.

It's a "oooohhhh" inspiring game for its sheer complexity.... i'm having fun, but its a sloooow and time consuming fun. Put it this way, MW3 is crack... DF is meditation...

You guys that excel in this game, congrats, you are operating in higher planes

I think is a valid and funny approach the article had given us (grammar ok?).

Just firing up the game and investigating is really a challenge for true games... if you just picked up a box of domino would you know how to play? Or a deck of cards? You could create a game with those pictures. Same issue here.

Well, with dominoes or deck of cards I could do something. I might not know how to play a particular game, but I could still DO stuff. With DF, that most likely would not be the case.

Or to use more apt comparison: Legos. If you gave somebody a bunch of Legos, he might not know how to build complex structures. But he would understand the concept quickly. That you can snap them together to build more complicated stuff. How about DF? In this case time was spent wondering how do you make the dwarves do even the most basic stuff. Time was spent wondering about the basic concepts of the game. Time was spent wondering what the hell is going on in the screen. In case of Legos, that would be same as the person had no idea that you can snap them together, or that you can actually do stuff with them.

The obvious question I have, as a professional UX/UI designer, is why do the authors not have a proper interface? It seems as if there are a couple likely reasons.

First, the inaccessibility keeps only the nerds playing, and I say that with all due respect as I consider myself pretty nerdy, This creates a small club of snobbery that you were able to overcome the obtuse UI to find the diamond in the rough. In a way, I can respect that. I often think about how much better a game like Minecraft would be with a better interface. (Mostly because I've played a lot of Minecraft and no Dwarf Fortress.) Minecraft has tons of needlessly complex interface quirks, what a UI designer would call "sh!t work" that does nothing to add value to the gameplay. They are intentional barriers. However, in most cases, these offer no reward at all.

Second, is that the amount of information surfaced is wildly more complicated than it needs to be for the game mechanics to be purposeful. There's no need to have so many rock variations, other than completeness. While this creates a true simulation, it detracts from playability. Rinse and repeat, because it seems obvious this same completeness-versus-playability paradigm is throughout DF.

Third, and this is perhaps the most obvious, is that the authors either don't care or can't afford a decent interface. It's a labor of love and it works for them, so anyone that also "gets it" is in the club. Well, that's unfortunate. With most of the complexity intact, but a humane interface that efficiently organizes and optimizes complex tasks, this could be a playable but still wildly difficult game. I can only imagine the authors have decided to not care, because this comes up every time someone utters the phrase "Dwarf Fortress."

The obvious question I have, as a professional UX/UI designer, is why do the authors not have a proper interface? It seems as if there are a couple likely reasons.

First, the inaccessibility keeps only the nerds playing, and I say that with all due respect as I consider myself pretty nerdy, This creates a small club of snobbery that you were able to overcome the obtuse UI to find the diamond in the rough. In a way, I can respect that. I often think about how much better a game like Minecraft would be with a better interface. (Mostly because I've played a lot of Minecraft and no Dwarf Fortress.) Minecraft has tons of needlessly complex interface quirks, what a UI designer would call "sh!t work" that does nothing to add value to the gameplay. They are intentional barriers. However, in most cases, these offer no reward at all.

Second, is that the amount of information surfaced is wildly more complicated than it needs to be for the game mechanics to be purposeful. There's no need to have so many rock variations, other than completeness. While this creates a true simulation, it detracts from playability. Rinse and repeat, because it seems obvious this same completeness-versus-playability paradigm is throughout DF.

Third, and this is perhaps the most obvious, is that the authors either don't care or can't afford a decent interface. It's a labor of love and it works for them, so anyone that also "gets it" is in the club. Well, that's unfortunate. With most of the complexity intact, but a humane interface that efficiently organizes and optimizes complex tasks, this could be a playable but still wildly difficult game. I can only imagine the authors have decided to not care, because this comes up every time someone utters the phrase "Dwarf Fortress."

I think we found a volunteer to put build a GUI front-end for Dwarf Fortress

To all the people singing this game's praises, speaking of true depth of simulation and emergent behaviours, can I ask one thing: why does this have to preclude a good UI and instructions? I understand there may be some meat here that could be enjoyable, but an inscrutable UI and little to no direction means I will never see it. I do not see overcoming such deficiencies in a game as an accomplishment; I see it as my time wasted.

Obviously, enjoy what you will. But I can say for certainty that I would never enjoy this.

The UI on the other hand, now there I hope things would be better. Even if the Adams Brothers may consider it secondary at this stage of the project I hope there would be an API of some sort to create an alternative UI for the game. Now there's a challenge for hard core fortress managers, I'm sure there's more than a handfull of programmers in that group.

Actually, could we have a Kickstarter project to fund that? Or to convince Tarn, who is living by the donations from the players, to do that?

There have been more than enough capable people willing to work on it for free for years now, he's uninterested. The only times he has broken down and accepted direct help were allowing user tile-sets, and getting some help with the graphics code when it was becoming a big performance bottleneck (it was terrible OpenGL code).

Quote:

Second, is that the amount of information surfaced is wildly more complicated than it needs to be for the game mechanics to be purposeful. There's no need to have so many rock variations, other than completeness. While this creates a true simulation, it detracts from playability. Rinse and repeat, because it seems obvious this same completeness-versus-playability paradigm is throughout DF.

The interface issues are much more basic than that. I don't think hiding information is the answer (hiding information works for initial discovery and intuitiveness, but sucks for day to day use. That's why professional applications like Photoshop don't have simple interfaces or hide information), just rearranging and making what's there consistent would improve things by leaps and bounds.

To all the people singing this game's praises, speaking of true depth of simulation and emergent behaviours, can I ask one thing: why does this have to preclude a good UI and instructions? I understand there may be some meat here that could be enjoyable, but an inscrutable UI and little to no direction means I will never see it. I do not see overcoming such deficiencies in a game as an accomplishment; I see it as my time wasted.

Obviously, enjoy what you will. But I can say for certainty that I would never enjoy this.

Install and stroke some keys around... i've done it yesterday... it's not that bad... install a tileset, ascii is just for hardcore i guess.

To all the people singing this game's praises, speaking of true depth of simulation and emergent behaviours, can I ask one thing: why does this have to preclude a good UI and instructions? I understand there may be some meat here that could be enjoyable, but an inscrutable UI and little to no direction means I will never see it. I do not see overcoming such deficiencies in a game as an accomplishment; I see it as my time wasted.

Obviously, enjoy what you will. But I can say for certainty that I would never enjoy this.

I hunk the argument is that there is limited amount of resources available, so the question is that should the resources be directed at the UI or adding depth and detail to the game.

But this brings up another question: since resources are limited, how about adding resources? It seems that currently the team is basically 1.5 people, how about adding more? Yes yes, we can't just add people and expect linear increase in results. But if the developer does not have time to work on the UI, how about adding a developer who does? It's a labor of love and all, but the game could be so much better.

To all the people singing this game's praises, speaking of true depth of simulation and emergent behaviours, can I ask one thing: why does this have to preclude a good UI and instructions? I understand there may be some meat here that could be enjoyable, but an inscrutable UI and little to no direction means I will never see it. I do not see overcoming such deficiencies in a game as an accomplishment; I see it as my time wasted.

Obviously, enjoy what you will. But I can say for certainty that I would never enjoy this.

I think it's forgivable because of how early the state of the game is right now. There are more features that aren't implemented yet than those that are. There is a lot of information shown right now that isn't necessary to play the game, but make debugging and seeing what is going on behind the scenes easier. At this point, the UI and instructions are absolutely unimportant because until the game gets close to release they will be changing constantly. The fans do a great job of keeping the instructions on the wiki and other sources up to date anyway.

If I were working on a project like this, I would be doing the same thing. It doesn't matter if the game is easy to play or understand at this point because it isn't a released product yet. By the time it does get to the point where it is feature complete and prepping for a real alpha or beta, what people will expect a UI to be will likely have completely changed also. Just look at how the concept of the user interface has changed in the last couple of years.

A lot of people seem to be treating this like a game that has already been released or is close to being released. It's not, and it will likely be several more years before it's even halfway completed. I like that he's providing these early copies, and looking at his donations, others feel the same. I wish more game developers would provide early access like this.

At this point, the UI and instructions are absolutely unimportant because until the game gets close to release they will be changing constantly.

People keep saying things like this, I don't think it means what they think it means. Another fan already admitted "release" is "when he reaches 100 implemented items." Which means "release" is a wholly arbitrary point at which the UI and instructions will be just as shitty as they are now unless they are prioritized on the implementation "schedule," and it is better and easier to do that early (ie, now) before the game adds more complexity and details.

At this point, the UI and instructions are absolutely unimportant because until the game gets close to release they will be changing constantly.

People keep saying things like this, I don't think it means what they think it means. Another fan already admitted "release" is "when he reaches 100 implemented items." Which means "release" is a wholly arbitrary point at which the UI and instructions will be just as shitty as they are now unless they are prioritized on the implementation "schedule," and it is better and easier to do that early (ie, now) before the game adds more complexity and details.

One would note that "UI usable by mere mortals" is not on his big list of 100 features either.

I hunk the argument is that there is limited amount of resources available, so the question is that should the resources be directed at the UI or adding depth and detail to the game.

But this brings up another question: since resources are limited, how about adding resources? It seems that currently the team is basically 1.5 people, how about adding more? Yes yes, we can't just add people and expect linear increase in results. But if the developer does not have time to work on the UI, how about adding a developer who does? It's a labor of love and all, but the game could be so much better.

Small core team of developers could achieve great things.

I certainly agree that adding one or 2 more people to the dev team would produce significant results. Even if it was one person working on UI and another working on some other aspect w/Tarn having final say on anything, it would still step up the progress of the game a good bit. The issue there is that this is all running off of donations. He makes 30-50k annually in donations. According to that NYT article, his expenses are $860 rent (probably gone up a bit since), $750 to Zach and a few hundred on utilities. Even if his rent hasn't increased, you are looking at annual expenses of $22,920, plus anything else that randomly comes up. If he only makes $30k in a given year, how is he going to hire people to work for him?

This goes back to the idea of a kickstarter program to budget hiring 2 or 3 people and keep things moving for the next, say, 3 years. Even if he opted not to do a new kickstarter at teh end of that timeframe to keep other people working on the game, how much farther would he advance from version 0.34? Get one good UI designer and one person to help code up more of the things on the long term list. Sounds like his brother could handle a lot of the management aspects and allow Tarn to focus on his work more than wrangling the 2 other guys and constantly reviewing progress.

This is, of course, in that land of things that will never happen, but I'd imagine the progress made in that imaginary 3 year period would be quite a bit more than the last 3 years of DF updates.

beef623 wrote:

A lot of people seem to be treating this like a game that has already been released or is close to being released. It's not, and it will likely be several more years before it's even halfway completed. I like that he's providing these early copies, and looking at his donations, others feel the same. I wish more game developers would provide early access like this.

I realize that Tarn (or at least folks in this comment thread) are using a different definition of "release" (specifcally, achieving 1.0), but technically, every time he puts a new version of the game on the site, it's a release. I test software for a living. Some things aren't feature complete when you release them for the next round of testing, but it's definitely a release. If he has released 1 version for every step along teh way to 0.34, he has 34 releases so far.

He is never releasing the game for sale and has said he expects it to take 20 years to reach 1.0 at his current pace, so trying to hide behind "well it's so early.." is a bunch of crap. 9 years. I mean, we're approaching DNF territory, but there has been something to show for it along the way as people have been getting to test it as is for many years now.

If he only makes $30k in a given year, how is he going to hire people to work for him?

Why would he be hiring people? People are willing to contribute for free and it's not an official product

B/c a)that is what other people were suggesting and I was adressing that specific concept and b)Tarn has also said that internet people aren't to be trusted to keep their focus. Someone getting paid for their efforts is, typically, more committed to a project that one working on it for free. Also, how is it not an official product? It's the only game currently being developed by him and it's receiving releases and updates. Yes it isn't for sale, but as noted before, he has said it won't be for sale

Also, how is it not an official product? It's the only game currently being developed by him and it's receiving releases and updates.

In the same way that any free ware that isn't even released after 10 years isn't an official product.But more so because it isn't for anyone.

And who cares if internet people "can't be trusted to keep their focus?" That's a red herring. It isn't dependent on people making support functionality to finish anything in a timely manner, and who is he to accuse anyone of not doing things in a timely manner.

If he only makes $30k in a given year, how is he going to hire people to work for him?

Why would he be hiring people? People are willing to contribute for free and it's not an official product

B/c a)that is what other people were suggesting and I was adressing that specific concept and b)Tarn has also said that internet people aren't to be trusted to keep their focus. Someone getting paid for their efforts is, typically, more committed to a project that one working on it for free. Also, how is it not an official product? It's the only game currently being developed by him and it's receiving releases and updates. Yes it isn't for sale, but as noted before, he has said it won't be for sale

No, I did not suggest hiring people. The fan base of DF seems... Enthusiastic, and they are already producing add-ons and tools for the game. Why not bring them in as volunteers and make their contributions official part of the game?

Sure, those volunteers might lose interest at some point. Such is life. But they would still provide their time and resources to the project during the tie they are involved. I don't really see why they should make a lifelong commitment to the project.

If he only makes $30k in a given year, how is he going to hire people to work for him?

Why would he be hiring people? People are willing to contribute for free and it's not an official product

I know I'd be willing to help clean up code and increase performance for free. It's not dreadful because I don't have to do it for work now, and algorithm optimization while mindmeltingly painful at times, taps my mind's gamer number chasing motivation.

B/c a)that is what other people were suggesting and I was adressing that specific concept

No, I did not suggest hiring people.

Janne, I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was addressing the idea that other people have put forth before, like so:

Alfonse wrote:

BTW, where is the $100,000 Kickstarter project to give DF a decent UI? If development time is really the limiting factor here, why not just outsource the development of a decent UI with Kickstarter? Hire some talented UX experts.

Cymbaline wrote:

If he can simulate the arc of a cut-off finger, he can program the UI, believe you me. And if he can't, he can hire someone who can. It can be done.

Turbulence wrote:

Still, I sit here and think: This game is fun, but if the developer wanted to even listen to 1 person, or hire 1 person to actively collaborate... it could be so much better for so many people. He says in an interview that "internet people can't be trusted because they might lose interest." So, /hire/ someone for real then. Overall it just seems like a lot of potential that goes missing. He's adding a ton of fun gameplay detail, while the pathway to access that detail remains long, narrow, and cramped.

This article was very funny and inspired me to tackle the challenges of the game.

I spent a whole bunch of hours on it this week and had a lot of fun. However, I hate to say it, but the UI, even though you can learn it, is just plain disorganized.

"Stockpile Zones" is one menu. "Activity Zones" is another separate menu. "Room Zones" have to be designated by a special keyword while highlighting special objects--then you identify rooms with an awkwardly shaped labeling tool and a completely different area selector from the other two. Things would be a lot simpler if these were just all just 'Zones'. And then "Workshops", while occupying zones of free space, is a completely different thing. And then "garbage dump". According to the Quickstart Guide, "garbage" is never used for actual garbage, only used for space-saving storage of valuable items. I started to see the meaning of people's criticisms of the UI. I can learn this stuff, but it's just...eh. The dwarf stories, art, and fights that occur are always funny and interesting, though.

Still, I sit here and think: This game is fun, but if the developer wanted to even listen to 1 person, or hire 1 person to actively collaborate... it could be so much better for so many people. He says in an interview that "internet people can't be trusted because they might lose interest." So, /hire/ someone for real then. Overall it just seems like a lot of potential that goes missing. He's adding a ton of fun gameplay detail, while the pathway to access that detail remains long, narrow, and cramped.

You can say "it is what it is", but i say, "it is a whole lot less than it could easily be, even though sadly, it is what it is."

To offer some counterexamples:

A deep game done by a small company of 8 people that responds extremely well to community input and is easy to get into while very hard to master: Path of ExileA deep sanbox game done by a single guy with help from volunteers that responds really well to communty input and which is easy to get into while moderately challenging to master: [REDACTED per rules, but trust me, it exists and its existence disproves the "Making the UI simple in a deep sandbox game is too hard" argument].

I tried DF this week and this post pretty much sums up my thoughts. The game is actually fun by itself and doesn't need to rely on the challenge of the quirky interface. If they took the time to clean it up they could have a commercial hit on their hands and get more value out of their time spent.

As others have said, the hardcore group who take the motto "loosing is fun" to heart may be disappointed but, at some point, the developers have to take the interface seriously. Besides, from my brief play, there is so much content there already that it will still be a challenging game to master for most even with a well organised interface.

Also, how is it not an official product? It's the only game currently being developed by him and it's receiving releases and updates.

In the same way that any free ware that isn't even released after 10 years isn't an official product.But more so because it isn't for anyone.

And who cares if internet people "can't be trusted to keep their focus?" That's a red herring. It isn't dependent on people making support functionality to finish anything in a timely manner, and who is he to accuse anyone of not doing things in a timely manner.

I see Toady's point here. How many volunteers do you think will have the gumption to stick with it for the 20 years he plans to take to finish the game? If someone volunteers to develop a UI that is great. They'll have a nice UI for the current 0.34 version of the game. Then a new version comes out and the UI has to be updated. Toady doesn't want to be the guy doing that and he doesn't think someone who wrote the 0.34 version will be around for the 0.87 version in 2035 to update the UI.

I see Toady's point here. How many volunteers do you think will have the gumption to stick with it for the 20 years he plans to take to finish the game?

I completely fail to see his point. You (and he) would make it seem like a project never gets completed if someone doesn't stay on it from beginning to end. How many commercial releases do you think that's true of? It's not like my code disappears when I quit working for my company. I'm maintaining the code of departed employees, and I will leave my code behind whenever I hit it. I write clean code, comment it well, practice good standards, and thus someone else can take over my work and run with it should I have a change of heart.

Virtually no one, anywhere, ever, writes code from completely from scratch. They all interface with other people's code. Toady is doing it (he uses OpenGL, no?). It's not a big deal.

The reality of the situation is that he doesn't want to work with other people, whether it's because he's afraid to give up any part of his baby to other people (I totally get that, even if I think it's the wrong choice), because he doesn't want to spend time on management, or any other number of reasons.

Quote:

If someone volunteers to develop a UI that is great. They'll have a nice UI for the current 0.34 version of the game. Then a new version comes out and the UI has to be updated. Toady doesn't want to be the guy doing that and he doesn't think someone who wrote the 0.34 version will be around for the 0.87 version in 2035 to update the UI.

So get some other guy to do the update. You really think this situation has never, ever happened before in the history of development? Furthermore, he already updates the UI if it needs to be updated, he just updates his current UI. If the theoretical volunteer coder who programs the UI does a good job with it, it'll take a minimum of effort to hook the new features into it.

I mean, really, guys, it's not that hard. Developing a UI for a game is not some new, uncharted territory in development.

They'll have a nice UI for the current 0.34 version of the game. Then a new version comes out and the UI has to be updated. Toady doesn't want to be the guy doing that and he doesn't think someone who wrote the 0.34 version will be around for the 0.87 version in 2035 to update the UI.

That's a code design issue. Improvements and optimizations to in place code do not disapear, and if designed correctly are not any more troublesome than it was before. The key issue with doing such changes on the code is introducing bugs and breaking other code that is dependent on some nuance in the implimentation.

What we need is a rich benefactor to fund a team of coding ninjas to help out Tarn. Perhaps with a trust that lasts at least 20 years. And gives Tarn nice health insurance.

They'll remain completely invisible and just optimize his source code or work on making third party UIs plug into it, and never interact with him at all if that's what he wants. In fact he doesn't have to look at their version of the code ever, they'll just rewrite it from his version repeatedly over 20 year sif that's what it takes.